SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
MR.JAVAD KUTTIKARAN HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
MR.ARJUN.A – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1754 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI, SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, SHRI.ARAVIND T RAMESH, SHRI.ASHIK ALI M.H., SMT.ASWATHI K.C.
For the Respondents: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI, SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON, SMT.AVANTHIKA R., SRI.P.O.THOMAS

The court emphasized the necessity for fair representation in judicial proceedings, mandating reconsideration of a restoration application where a prior decision was made erroneously.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the appeal of the petitioners against an order from the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, specifically relating to the dismissal of an application for restoration of their earlier appeal. The court found that the prior tribunal had erroneously concluded there was no representation by the petitioners, warranting intervention. The court directed the tribunal to reconsider the restoration application in accordance with law. The conclusion was to set aside the earlier order and ensure a fair hearing on the application for restoration without prejudice to the petitioners' claims.

Table of Content
1. basis of petitioners' appeal (Para 1)
2. arguments for restoration (Para 2)
3. judicial observations on fairness (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are appellants in REFA No.16/2025 on the files of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam filed against Ext. P1 order of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Complaint No.26/2021 filed by the first respondent herein. The said appeal was dismissed for default by Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2025. The petitioners filed Ext.P4 application for its restoration. However, the same was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. Challenging Ext.P9, this original petition is filed. This Court by order dated 25.07.2025 stayed execution of Ext. P1 as against the petitioners.

2. Registry has noted that service of notice to respondent No.4 (respondent No.3 in Complaint No.26/2021) is not complete. Respondent No.4 was deleted from the array of respondents in the complaint as seen from Ext.P1 order.

Therefore, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ext. P9 order has been passed without considering the averments in Ext. P4 application and that the Tribunal disregarded the appearance of the junior counsel and erroneously recorded in Ext. P9 that there was no representation for the petitioners.

4. Sri. T. Madhu, learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the complainant before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority submits that the first respondent has no objection in Ext.P4 application for restoration being reconsidered by the Tribunal and the original petition may be disposed of with such direction.

In the light of the said submission and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P9 order is set aside and the original petition is disposed of directing the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P4 application afresh and in accordance with law, untrammeled by any observations in Ext.P9. The parties shall appear before the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam on 16/03/2026. Fresh orders on Ext.P4 shall be passed within two months therefrom.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top